A sequel/reboot should still retain the core strengths and focus of its predecessors. DX:HR was good because it did that (for the most part) while expanding and improving upon the previous games in the series. SC: Conviction was bad because it threw out all the compelling stealth mechanics of the first four games and replaced them with an extremely overpowered Press-A-To-Win shooting mechanic (Mark & Execute). You could no longer move or hide bodies, throw objects to distract enemies, whistle to lure them towards you, interrogate them, incapacitate them in non-lethal manners, etc. In Conviction, the game was explicitly designed for you to kill every enemy you encountered and that's it. It was a shooter with stealth elements, which is the exact opposite of what Splinter Cell was known and liked for.

If you're going to make a sequel/reboot that has nothing in common with its predecessors, you're better off just starting a new IP.

As for Fallout, I included it because of Fallout 3. They got rid of the turn-based combat, which made the combat play like a substandard shooter. It did still retain some of the RPG elements of the series, though FNV did a much better job of that.

Subject

OptionalMessage

Login

Email Password Remember Me

If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can
sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.